Discussion about this post

User's avatar
Sarah Barnett's avatar

Very well said, explained and backed up. It’s only a shame that you had so much opposition that it seemed necessary for your position to require explanation. It’s a very sad and grave situation. Personally, the only circumstances I can see where his killing could be “justifiable” would have been if he was pointing a gun at an ICE Agent or member of the public and threatening to use it and was warned by the agents that they’d have to shoot. That didn’t happen. Nothing close to that. It’s Modern-day public execution or murder. Both fit in my opinion. It cannot be supported, allowed or ignored. It cannot become an acceptable way of dealing with the public. And a country that legalises carrying guns cannot use that legal situation as a right or excuse, after the fact, to shoot a citizen. We have to use such words as execution or murder because this act should never be softened or dulled - it’s criminal, it’s unacceptable. To soften it makes a sham of modern democracy and threatens civil freedom. There needs to be a legal process and the opportunity for justice to be carried out as in any other street shooting crime.

The AI Architect's avatar

Brilliant breakdown of how language shapes moral boundaries. The Orwell reference really captures why poeple get uncomfortable with precise terms. Once we start softening language around state actions, it becomes way easier to justify almost anything retroactivley. The fact that folks are more offended by calling it what it is than by the actual event itself says a lot.

4 more comments...

No posts

Ready for more?